[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: back-bdb

To: Marijn Meijles <marijn@bitpit.net>
Subject: Re: back-bdb
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:26:57 -0700
Cc: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <20011015175547.A21931@unox.athome.tue.nl>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011014223608.016ab248@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20010925162141.016ac838@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20010925141914.016dac68@127.0.0.1> <002c01c14601$dbd58640$7601a8c0@fiddle.symas.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20010925141914.016dac68@127.0.0.1> <20010926000723.A23231@unox.athome.tue.nl> <5.1.0.14.0.20010925162141.016ac838@127.0.0.1> <20011014180145.B20054@unox.athome.tue.nl> <5.1.0.14.0.20011014223608.016ab248@127.0.0.1>

At 08:55 AM 2001-10-15, Marijn Meijles wrote:
>> the conversion from database format to in-memory format should
>> be significantly less than that in back-ldbm.  back-ldbm
>> uses LDIF in id2entry, back-bdb uses BER.  Optimizing
>> BER and memory management will shift the balance further.
>yup. with ldif format it's definitely faster, I did some profiling on that.

Numbers would be great....

>Have you already thought about what kind of cache you want to use?

Not yet.

BTW, any help completing back-bdb would be appreciated.  I'm
swamped with other things at the moment and will likely not
revisit the code for a few weeks.

Kurt

Follow-Ups:
- RE: back-bdb
  - From: "Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com>

References:
- Re: back-bdb (Was: Back up Berkeley dbb files may cause file corruption)
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: back-bdb (Was: Back up Berkeley dbb files may cause file corruption)
  - From: Marijn Meijles <marijn@bitpit.net>
- Re: back-bdb
  - From: Marijn Meijles <marijn@bitpit.net>

Prev by Date: RE: back-bdb
Next by Date: RE: back-bdb
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread